The Beacon Spring 2021

Institute

The

Beacon The Windward Institute Journal for Educators and Parents Spring 2021 IN THIS ISSUE The Simple View of Reading

By Hugh W. Catts, PhD

1

HEAD LINES

10

Q&A WITH INSPIRING LEADERS IN THE WORLD OF DYSLEXIA

12

Learning Disabilities vs. Learning Differences: Why the Language We Use Matters

By Jamie Williamson

Magdalena Zavalía Miguens, Literacy Leader in Spanish­Speaking World

By Stephanie Huie TURNING THE TIDE

The Masked Matthew Effect

By Annie Stutzman

By Hugh W. Catts, PhD 14

INSIDE THE INSTITUTE

16

RESEARCH ROUNDUP

19

INTERSECTING RESEARCH WITH CLASSROOM PRACTICE

22

NEWS AROUND WINDWARD

25

Scientifically­Based Reading Programs: Caveat Emptor

By Dr. John J. Russell, EdD

The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and False Impressions

Yes, And...A Comprehensive Model for Understanding Reading Disabilities

By Danielle Scorrano

Why Reading Aloud Is Not Just for Early Readers

By Molly Ness, PhD and Kate Sullivan

Jamaica Partnership Spotlight and Windward/Haskins Study Year 1 Data

This article was originally published in Remedial and Special Education, vol. 39, No. 5, September/October 2018. pp. 317-323, copyright © 2018 by Hammill Institute on Disabilities. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Inc.

T

he simple view of reading (SVR) was introduced by Gough and Tunmer over 30 years ago in a short paper in this journal (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). At the time, it was unlikely that the authors had any appreciation of the impact their rather simple but insightful conceptualization would have on the field of reading. Most of this impact has been positive and has led to significant advancements in our understanding of reading comprehension (RC). In this commentary, I will highlight these advancements as well as the contributions of the other research papers in this issue. I will also raise the possibility that the impact of the SVR has not been completely positive. I will argue that the simplicity of its presentation has unintentionally contributed to some false impressions about comprehension, and in doing so, has led us astray in important ways.

A Framework for Reading Comprehension Since the introduction of the SVR, hundreds of studies have used this model to guide their investigation and/or interpret their results. Many investigations have directly examined the main premise of the model; that is, RC is the product of decoding and language comprehension.1 This work has confirmed that much of the variance in RC can be accounted for by individual differences in decoding and language comprehension (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Hoover & Gough, 1990).

This has been shown to be the case in English readers as well as readers of other alphabetic orthographies including Greek (Protopapas, Simos, Sideridis, & Mouzaki,

2

The Beacon Spring 2021

2012), Hebrew (Joshi, Ji, Breznitz, Amiel, & Yulia, 2015), and much, if not more, variance in RC than does the unique variance Italian (Tobia & Bonifacci, 2015) as well as nonalphabetic writing of either variable. They speculate that this shared variance may be systems like Chinese (Ho, Chow, Wong, Waye, & Bishop, 2012; related to general cognitive-linguistic ability, and as such, may limit see Florit & Cain, 2011 for review). The SVR has also been used how easy it will be to substantially improve RC. to account for individual differences in RC of second language The SVR has also contributed to our understanding of the learners (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, cognitive prerequisites of RC and to the early identification of 2012) and dual-language users (Bonifacci & Tobia, 2017). comprehension problems. Gough and Tunmer’s original paper paid Whereas decoding and language comprehension account for particular attention to decoding. It was written at the height of the much of the variance in RC, the relative relationship of these whole language movement, and the authors wanted to highlight the components to comprehension appears to vary across the school importance of decoding to comprehension. Their paper as well as grades (Catts et al., 2005; Language and Reading Research others led to the consideration of decoding-related prerequisites Consortium, 2015; Tilstra, McMaster, Van den Broek, Kendeou, such as phonological awareness, rapid naming, and letter knowledge & Rapp, 2009). In the initial school grades, for the early identification of reading decoding abilities explain a majority of the problems. More recently, proponents of the Whereas decoding variance in RC, whereas in later grades, it is SVR have turned their attention to language the language comprehension component comprehension and its corresponding and language that accounts for most of the variability. It is prerequisites. This work has focused on the not surprising that for children just learning language basis of RC and on early language comprehension to read that decoding skill has the greatest abilities as important prerequisites and impact on comprehension. The shift to the predictors of later comprehension (Catts, account for much of dominance of language comprehension Herrara, Nielsen, & Bridges, 2015; Kendeou, the variance in RC, the van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; appears to occur once decoding has become faster and more automatic, and the Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Language and relative relationship vocabulary, grammar, and discourse Reading Research Consortium and Chiu (In demands of reading materials have increased. issue) extend this work by documenting of these components this This occurs somewhere around third or the pathway of prekindergarten language fourth grade for typically developing readers abilities though language comprehension to to comprehension in English (Catts et al., 2005; Language and third grade RC. They found that measures Reading Research Consortium, 2015). appears to vary across of vocabulary, grammar, and discourse in However, this may occur later in more preschool children predicted third grade opaque orthographies (Joshi et al., 2015) language comprehension, which in turn was the school grades. and perhaps even earlier in transparent related to third grade RC. The implications orthographies. For example, in a cross-sectional study involving of this line of research is that if we are going to adequately identify Italian speaking children, Tobia and Bonifacci (2015) found that children at risk for the full range of reading disabilities, early language comprehension was the primary contributor to RC right screening protocols need to include measures of oral language as from the beginning of the primary grades (also see Florit & Cain, well as decoding-related predictors (also see Catts, Nielsen, Bridges, 2011). & Liu, 2016; Foorman, Torgesen, Crawford, & Petscher, 2009).

The changing relationship between factors in the SVR was also The SVR has also proven to be useful in the classification of investigated by Lonigan, Burgess, and Schatschneider (In this issue). reading disabilities. Gough and Tunmer (1986) introduced the SVR Using a latent variable approach, they showed that decoding and in part to illustrate how poor readers might be classified into three language comprehension accounted for nearly all of the variance in types: those with problems in decoding, language comprehension, RC among a sample of children in Grades 3 through 5. Like the or both. The first was dyslexia, the second hyperlexia, and the third studies above, they observed that decoding played a larger role in was referred to as garden variety reading disability. Subsequent RC in earlier grades and language comprehension played a greater studies using the SVR framework have identified each of these types role in later grades. Such a finding may indicate that language of problems among children with comprehension deficits (Aaron, comprehension is more important for more skilled readers than it Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Elbert & Scott, 2016). There is also some is for less skilled readers. Lonigan and colleagues further provided indication that the percentage of each group among poor readers some limited support for this inference using quantile regression may change across grades (Catts et al., 2005), which is in keeping analyses to look at relationships across comprehension ability with the previously mentioned finding that the contribution of independent of grade. Finally, the authors highlight an important decoding and language comprehension to RC changes across grades. finding that is often overlooked. That is, the variance shared by The SVR has drawn particular attention to poor readers with decoding and language comprehension typically accounts for as the second type of reading problem (Cain & Oakhill, 1999;

Spring 2021 The Beacon

Nation, Cocksey, Taylor, & Bishop, 2010). This group is more often (Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015). This may referred to as poor comprehenders or children with a specific indicate that once children become more accurate in their word comprehension deficit rather than Gough and Tunmer’s original reading, fluency may be a more sensitive indicator of word reading designation of hyperlexia. These children have poor RC but ability and the variance it explains in RC. Furthermore, in more adequate or better decoding. The SVR assumes that these children transparent orthographies, fluency may be a more powerful have a primary problem in language comprehension. Indeed, predictor of word reading ability than accuracy from the beginning research has shown that poor comprehenders have oral language of school (Florit & Cain, 2011). Thus, the components of SVR deficits (Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer, 2006; Nation et al., 2010). may need to be qualified based on the grade and the transparency of However, poor comprehenders’ problems go beyond oral language the orthography. and include difficulties in working memory, inferencing, and world Another line of research has proposed that vocabulary may knowledge (Cain, 2006; Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Compton, Miller, account for variance in RC over and above decoding and language Gilbert, & Steacy, 2013). These factors, however, may still be comprehension (Braze, Tabor, Shankweiler, & Mencl, 2007; considered to be part of language Ouellette & Beers, 2010). This finding is comprehension, and variability in them difficult to reconcile with the SVR because It is not just individual may be partitioned into this component vocabulary is typically considered to be part along with variability due to oral language. differences in cognitive of the language comprehension component.

Nonetheless, to effectively address the One explanation for the observance of the problems of poor comprehenders, we need unique contribution of vocabulary in some abilities between to know specifically what comprises this studies is that measures of vocabulary are component and what aspects are malleable. more reliable or more central to the readers that influence By its nature, the SVR partitions the construct of language comprehension than comprehension but also are other language measures used in these variance of RC into decoding and language comprehension, but does not specify studies. Support for the latter hypothesis how individual readers subcomponents. There have been some comes from latent variable approaches attempts to further delineate language that have found that when language make use of these comprehension (Language and Reading comprehension is assessed by multiple Research Consortium & Logan, 2017; abilities to comprehend indicators and modeled accordingly, a Lervag, Hulme, & Melby-Lervag, 2017), vocabulary factor is no longer needed but additional work is needed to more fully within a simple view model (Braze et al., different texts for understand this construct and its influence 2016; Protopapas, Mouzaki, Sideridis, on RC. This is particularly the case since Kotsolakou, & Simos, 2013; Tunmer different purposes. the SVR is being used to set standards and & Chapman, 2012). guide educational practice in the schools (Rose, 2006).

There have been further expansions on the SVR that have added variables that have not typically been considered to be part of the Expanding the Simple View model. For example, Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, and Bentum (2008) Research on the SVR has also considered whether or not proposed the component model of reading, in which psychological additional factors are needed in the model. One such line of work (motivation, interest, learned helplessness) and ecological (classroom has focused on the question of whether reading fluency needs to environment, peer influence) components were added to the be added or if word reading accuracy is sufficient to capture the cognitive components of the SVR. There is some initial support variance due to decoding (Adlof, Catts, & Little, 2006; Kershaw for this model (Chiu, McBride-Chang, & Lin, 2012; Ortiz et al., & Schatschneider, 2012; Language and Reading Research 2012), but a full test of its validity is yet to be shown. In another Consortium, 2015; Protopapas et al., 2012; Tilstra et al., 2009). In line of work, Francis, Kulesz, and Benoit (In this issue) further related studies, researchers have also sought to determine if naming expand, or as they say, alter the SVR to include other factors not speed adds to the prediction of RC (Johnston & Kirby, 2006; Joshi typically included in this model. In what they call the Complete & Aaron, 2000). The results of this line of investigation are not View of Reading, they add text-level variables to the components of entirely consistent; some studies indicate a need to include fluency the SVR. As I also make reference to in the next section, Francis and (or naming speed) and others do not. One factor that may help colleagues argue that it is not just individual differences in cognitive explain the inconsistency of the findings is the grade at which abilities between readers that influence comprehension but also reading is examined. For example, a recent investigation found that how individual readers make use of these abilities to comprehend in first and second grade, word reading accuracy was the best different texts for different purposes. They note that another predictor of RC (beyond language comprehension), but in third well-known framework of RC, the Text and Discourse Framework grade it was word reading fluency that was the best predictor (e.g., McNamara, Graesser, & Louwerse, 2012), has been especially

3

4

The Beacon Spring 2021

concerned with how texts and features of linguistic discourse impact comprehension, However, seldom have investigators examined how reader and text characteristics impact RC in the same model. In fact, most studies involving the SVR have treated text features as nuisance variables and have averaged across texts or text activities to control these variables. In this issue, Francis and colleagues employ cross-classified random effects models to test their view of RC. They find evidence for text-level as well as person-level effects on RC that vary across readers. In addition, they add a developmental perspective by looking at how these effects vary across sixth to eighth grades.

fashion, we have often been led to think that comprehension, like decoding, is a “single thing.” Again at a rational level, we know that this is not true. However, we generally give the complexity of comprehension “a nod” and go on to measure it with a single test (or construct) and talk about it as if it were a single entity. In reality, comprehension is a multidimensional cognitive activity and one of the most complex behaviors that we engage in on a regular basis.

The extent of the complexity has been recognized in the literature for many years (e.g., Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Lipson & Wixson, 1986) and was summarized over 15 years ago by the RAND Corporation Reading Study Group (Snow, 2002). This group conceptualized RC as a multidimensional ability that is influenced False Impressions by reader, text, and task variables. According Whereas the SVR has significantly this model, comprehension is much more Given our successes in to advanced our understanding of RC, the variable than the SVR model would lead us to simplicity of its presentation has also believe. In fact, any one individual may have decoding, I think our contributed to some false impressions many different levels of RC depending on about comprehension. The SVR highlights what they are reading and why they are false impressions decoding and comprehension in a reading it. Thus, despite what is sometimes comparable manner and typically displays about the comparability implied by the SVR, we cannot reduce them graphically in the same sized fonts comprehension to a single entity or score. and/or boxes (Kirby & Savage, 2008; of decoding and To adequately understand the processes Language and Reading Research involved in comprehension and the Consortium, 2015; Protopapas et al., comprehension led us individual differences in these processes, we 2012; van Wingerden, Segers, van Balkom, need to examine it from a multidimensional to expect that the & Verhoeven, 2017). In addition, in many perspective. Pearson, Valencia, and Wixson of the studies of the SVR that use statistical successes with decoding (2014) argue quite convincingly that we can modeling, the constructs representing only adequately measure RC by considering decoding and comprehension are displayed how well students comprehend specific texts could be replicated graphically in similar ways and often have for specific purposes. Gough, Hoover, and a similar number of indicators (Tobia & Peterson (1996) actually acknowledged this in with comprehension.

Bonifacci, 2015; Tunmer & Chapman, describing their original model. They noted 2012; van Wingerden et al., 2017). that while decoding was a general factor, comprehension was quite As such, these presentations have often led to the impression that variable and specific to what was being read. Unfortunately, this comprehension is not all that different from decoding in terms of its notion has been overlooked in many applications of the SVR. complexity and malleability. At a rational level, we know this is not Another way I believe the SVR has played a part in leading the case, and Gough and Tunmer (1986) surely did not intend us to us astray is in our expectations about the malleability of have this impression. However, the way things are presented matters comprehension. In recent years, we have made great strides and can lead us to think in illogical ways. For example, we somehow in teaching children to decode and read words. In the United have the impression that something that costs $9.99 is much less States, No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2002) and its related expensive than something that costs $10 or that a house with a initiatives of Reading First and Early Reading First have led to the higher listing price is really worth more than the same house with implementation of research-based practices for teaching children a lower listing. Nobel Laureate, Daniel Kahneman (2011) refers to to read and spell words. Other countries have experienced similar the latter as the “anchoring effect,” and he and his colleague Amos advancements in their early reading instruction (e.g., Rose, 2006).

Tversky have uncovered many ways in which the mind is tricked Although changes in instructional practices have not always by the presentation of the variables involved. Our false impressions, translated into improvements in reading, research has documented derived in part from the SVR and models like it, may be another that well-designed interventions directed at decoding abilities can example of such trickery. significantly impact these abilities in struggling readers (Denton et One false impression that I believe the SVR has contributed to al., 2013; Lovett et al., 2017). is the notion that comprehension, both language comprehension Given our successes in decoding, I think our false impressions and RC, is unidimensional and not nearly as complex as it really is. about the comparability of decoding and comprehension led us to By displaying comprehension alongside decoding in a comparable expect that the successes with decoding could be replicated with

Spring 2021 The Beacon

comprehension. For example, the recent Reading for Understanding Initiative (RFU), funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, began with rather high expectations of our ability to better understand and instruct comprehension (Douglas & Albro, 2014).

Indeed, this initiative has led to important new knowledge concerning comprehension (Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015; and other papers in this volume), but this knowledge has not readily translated into significant instructional gains in RC. RFU studies have found that instruction on the component skills of comprehension have led to improvements in these component skills, but for the most part, have not significantly

impacted performance on standardized tests of listening comprehension or RC (Phillips, Kim, Lonigan, & Connor, 2015; Piasta, Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Jiang, 2016; Wanzek, Swanson, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fall, 2016). Other research programs have reported similar findings (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009; Fuchs et al., in press; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010). Furthermore, in a meta-analysis of intervention studies for struggling readers over the last 30 years, Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, and Stuebing (2015) reported that the average effect size of interventions on standardized measures of RC was .19, which is a small effect. In addition, comparable or

Manuscript Submissions for The Beacon Now Open!

The Beacon is a biannual journal publication, published by The Windward Institute, that contains research papers and thought pieces that align with our mission to increase childhood literacy rates by disrupting the educational status quo. We invite educators and practitioners to contribute to future publications with their insight on how we can close the knowledge gap between proven research and current teaching practices.

Possible topics for considerations: Understanding language­based learning disabilities and reading disabilities Early screening and identification Supporting learners using evidence­based classroom interventions Cultivating a sense of belonging to support diversity, equity, and inclusion Addressing disparities in special education Identifying best practices of leadership for supporting teachers in their implementation of research­based instructional practices

Submissions may be sent to wi@thewindwardschool.org.

5

6

The Beacon Spring 2021

lower effect sizes were found by Boulay, Goodson, Frye, Blocklin, and Prize (2015) for RC in a review of intervention studies funded by the Department of Education Striving Readers Initiative.

One reason for the difficulty in improving RC may be that a large portion of the variance in comprehension is related to general cognitive-linguistic abilities that are rather stable in nature. Lonigan et al. (In this Issue) found that a considerable amount of the variance in RC (40%–70%) was shared by decoding and language comprehension and suggested that this shared variance was the result of one or more general cognitive-linguistic factors. Other studies have also found that the common variance between decoding and language comprehension accounts for as much, if not more, variance in RC than does the unique variance of either (e.g., Catts et al., 2005). It is still possible that the cognitive-linguistic factors that underlie this common variance are malleable, but it is not clear at this point what they are and how they might be changed.

Beyond its relationship to general cognitive-linguistic abilities, RC is far more complex than decoding. As noted above, comprehension is not a single thing but a multidimensional cognitive activity. Because of this, significant and widespread improvements in comprehension are unlikely to result from general instructional approaches such as teaching children to use reading strategies. Research does show that we can make some positive changes by teaching children to be more strategic readers (Swanson et al., 2014). However, strategy instruction is likely to work best when strategies are specific to the purpose of reading, and when they are combined with adequate content knowledge (Willingham, 2006). More generally, the multidimensional nature of comprehension lends itself better to instruction that is tailored to students’ abilities with specific texts and tasks. This instruction would entail identifying educationally relevant RC activities and directly teaching the component skills/knowledge bases involved in these activities. For example, in science curricula, students are often asked to evaluate an argument such as the benefits of solar power or the effects of climate change. Instruction for such a comprehension activity might best begin with a review of the content knowledge associated with solar power or climate change. Adequate content knowledge is critical for comprehension and should be central to

any instruction directed at improving it (Willingham, 2006).

Given the centrality of content knowledge, it is always surprising how little attention has been devoted to it in comprehension intervention. Gough et al. (1996) clearly recognized this, but again the role of content knowledge in the SVR has typically been neglected. Following a review of the content knowledge related to the argument, students would be provided with specific strategy instruction in how to identify a claim, evaluate the evidence, and consider the bias of both the author and the reader. They would also be given instruction and practice in how to best communicate this evaluation in the required task format (written essay, graphic presentation, oral report, etc.). As noted above, comprehension is typically associated with a task, and as such, instruction in task demands should lead to better outcomes. A comparable scenario could be devised to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention.

Such assessment would be much more informative than a standardized measure of comprehension. If an assessment is not matched well with the intervention and a theory of change related directly to the intervention, it would not be surprising that one would find proximal gains but no significant gains on distal standardized measures. This probably explains in part why most reported intervention gains on standardized instruments are so small.

In summary, the SVR has, in many ways, been a useful framework for our understanding of comprehension. It has helped us conceptualize the processes involved in comprehension and how these might contribute to individual differences. The SVR has also led to insights into ways to classify and identify children with reading disabilities. Despite these advancements, the SVR has also contributed to false impressions about the complexity and malleability of comprehension. I have argued that we need to more fully recognize the multidimensional nature of comprehension and take a more specific approach to intervention (and assessment).

I have suggested one scenario for intervention, but there are numerous other educationally relevant comprehension activities that could be the target of similar intervention. By taking a less than simple view of comprehension we should be better able to design specific interventions that can impact students’ performances in relevant ways.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Hugh W. Catts was a co-investigator for a grant, Language Basis of Reading Comprehension, funded by the Institute of Educational Science (R305F 1000002) as part of the Reading for Understanding Initiative. Work from this project is referenced in several instances in the commentary.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note 1. The term “language comprehension” is used to refer to language and related processes that play an important role in understanding words, sentences, and discourses regardless of the modality (reading or listening). It is analogous to Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) notion of linguistic comprehension.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

References Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008).

Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.

de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.

Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J.M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648.

Adlof, S., Catts, H., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.

Douglas, K. M., & Albro, E. R. (2014). The progress and promise of the reading for understanding research initiative. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 341–355.

Bonifacci, P., & Tobia, V. (2017). The simple view of reading in bilingual language-minority children acquiring a highly transparent second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 109–119.

Elbert, K. D., & Scott, C. M. (2016). Bringing the simple view of reading to the clinic: Relationships between oral and written language skills in a clinical sample. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 147–160.

Boulay, B., Goodson, B., Frye, M., Blocklin, M., & Price, C. (2015).

Summary of research generated by striving readers on the effectiveness of interventions for struggling adolescent readers (NCEE 2016–4001).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Braze, D., Katz, L., Magnuson, J., Mencl, W. E., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., ... Shankweiler, D. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 435–451.

Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D., & Mencl, W. E. (2007).

Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.

Elleman, A., Lindo, E., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44.

Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576.

Foorman, B. R., Torgesen, J. K., Crawford, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009).

Assessments to guide reading instruction in K–12: Decisions supported by the new Florida system. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 13–19.

Cain, K. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension: The role of working memory in normal and impaired development. In S. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 61–91). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.

Fuchs, D., Hendricks, E., Walsh, M. E., Fuchs, L. S., Gilbert, J. D., Tracy, W., ... Kim, W. (in press). Evaluating the efficacy of a multidimensional reading comprehension program for at risk students and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near transfer. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.

Gough, P., Hoover, W., & Peterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Catts, H. W., Adlof, S., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

Catts, H. W., Herrara, S., Nielsen, D., & Bridges, M. (2015). Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework.

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1407–1425.

Catts, H. W., Hogan, T., & Adlof, S. (2005). Developmental changes n reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ho, S., Chow, B., Wong, S., Waye, M., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2012).

The genetic and environmental foundation of the simple view of reading in Chinese. PLoS ONE, 7(10), Article e47872.

Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading.

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

Johnston, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 339–361.

Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D., Bridges, M., & Liu, Y. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 451–465.

Joshi, M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.

Chiu, M. M., McBride-Chang, C., & Lin, D. (2012). Ecological, psychological, and cognitive components of reading difficulties: testing the component model of reading in fourth graders across 38 countries.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 391–405.

Joshi, M., Ji, X., Breznitz, Z., Amiel, M., & Yulia, A. (2015).

Validation of the simple view of reading in Hebrew-A semitic language.

Scientific Studies in Reading, 19, 243–252.

Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Gilbert, J. K., & Steacy, L. M. (2013).

What can be learned about the reading comprehension of poor readers through the use of advanced statistical modeling techniques? In L. E. Cutting, B. Miller & P. Mccardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, & genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 135–147). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M., & Lynch, J. S. (2009).

Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.

7

8

The Beacon Spring 2021

Kershaw, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 433–464.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.

Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 151–169.

Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Logan, J. (2017).

Pressure points in reading comprehension: A quantile multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 451–464.

Lervag, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervag, M. (2017). Unpicking the developmental relationship between oral language skills and reading comprehension: It’s simple, but complex. Child Development.

Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/ cdev.12861 Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010).

The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools.

Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 196–228.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, 111–136.

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Joumal of Educational Psychology, 109, 889–914.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012).

Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro & R. T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up (pp. 89–119).

Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

Nation, K., Cocksey, J., Taylor, J. S., & Bishop, D. V. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 51, 1031–1039.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Ortiz, M., Folsom, J. S., Al Otaiba, S., Greulich, L., ThomasTate, S., & Connor, C. M. (2012). The componential model of reading: Predicting first grade reading performance of culturally diverse students from ecological, psychological, and cognitive factors, assessed at kindergarten entry. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 406–417.

Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story.

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 189–208.

Pearson, D.P., Valencia, S. W., & Wixson,K. (2014). Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory Into Practice, 53, 236–246.

Phillips, B. M., Kim, Y.-S., Lonigan, C. J., & Connor, C. M. (2015, July). Language for understanding: Two large-scale studies of small-group language interventions in prekindergarten and kindergarten.

Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Kona, HI.

Piasta, S., Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Jiang, H. (2016, July). Targeting lower- and higher-level language skills to support comprehension: Initial results for let’s know. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal.

Protopapas, A., Mouzaki, A., Sideridis, G. D., Kotsolakou, A., & Simos, P. G. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the context of the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 168–202.

Protopapas, A., Simos, P. G., Sideridis, G. D., & Mouzaki, A. (2012).

The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology, 33, 217–240.

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading.

Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications.

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading/or understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and coderelated precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.

Swanson, E., Hairrell, A., Kent, S., Ciullo, S., Wanzek, J. A., & Vaughn, S. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 178–195.

Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broelc, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401.

Tobia, V., & Bonifacci, P. (2015). The simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: The stronger role of oral comprehension.

Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 939–957.

Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466. van Wingerden, E., Segers, E., van Balkom, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2017).

Foundations of reading comprehension in children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 211–222.

Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1806–1818.

Wanzek, J., Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fall, A. M. (2016).

English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82, 428–442.

Willingham, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps. American Educator, 30, 30–37.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

THE ROBERT J. SCHWARTZ MEMORIAL LECTURE Institute

Early Identification of Dyslexia: Research to Practice Early identification of reading difficulties in children is critical for the prevention of reading disabilities and the negative consequences of these conditions. In this presentation, Hugh Catts, PhD, will: n Explain the importance of early identification and

intervention of dyslexia and other related reading disabilities n Identify factors that contribute to reading disabilities n Address factors that lead to poor reading comprehension

like vocabulary and background knowledge n Provide expert insights about choosing the most appropriate

and effective screening instruments for early readers n Offer practical applications for screening and

intervention in educational settings

Presented by

Hugh Catts, PhD Professor and Director of School of Communication Science and Disorders at Florida State University Dr. Hugh Catts researches the early identification and prevention of reading disabilities. He is a past board member of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) and past board member and president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. He has received the Samuel T. Orton Award from IDA and the Honors of the Association from the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association for his career contributions in each of these disciplines. His current research concerns the early identification of reading and language disabilities and the nature and assessment of reading comprehension problems.

Tuesday, April 20, 2021 7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Watch the lecture via Live Stream No Fee — reservation required R.S.V.P. online at thewindwardschool.org/lecture *This lecture is the rescheduled date for the cancelled 2020 event.

LIVE STREAM

9

10

The Beacon Spring 2021

Head Lines

Learning Disabilities vs.

Learning Differences: Why the Language We Use Matters

By Jamie Williamson Head of The Windward School

C

onsider a scenario in which parents begin noticing alarming currently 13 different disability classifications. In order for students changes in their 7-year-old son. He has developed a to be considered eligible to receive the supports and services ravenous appetite, but despite eating more, he’s losing provided under IDEA, they need to be ‘classified’ under one of weight. He is unquenchably thirsty despite constantly drinking these 13 categories” (LDANYS, 2008). water. Previously a vibrant, high-energy child, he is now lethargic.

Conversely, there’s no consensus or research-informed definition While seeking answers from his pediatrician, the parents are told, for a learning difference, and if there’s no research-based consensus “He has a sugar-processing difference.” There is no official diagnosis definition, then there’s no consensus treatment. If we allow and no defined path forward. ourselves to name and define these terms in any way we want, we If that feels implausible, it’s because it is. allow ourselves to decide how urgently we Without a proper diagnosis, which would call need to respond. When we open the door to Mislabeling disabilities naming disabilities as differences, schools are for active monitoring of blood sugar levels and the right research-based medication, diabetes to disregard research, and they avoid as differences allows enabled can have a serious impact on one’s ability to the need to respond appropriately. live a long and healthy life. Words have The term learning difference simply schools to avoid meaning. And when we describe something suggests that we all learn and acquire new the commitment using the best knowledge that we have and information differently, and, fundamentally, with the right words, those words have this is completely true. Learning differences they are required immense power. In the medical field, clarity of are part of the wonderful neurodiversity of diagnosis is critical, and this is no less the case to make to teach their people, and they are to be celebrated, not in the field of special education. remediated. As we say at The Windward At The Windward School, we embrace the students appropriately. School in our vision statement, Difference term learning disability rather than the term Is Power. However, this does not in any way learning difference for several important account for the significant challenges that reasons. For one, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act students with learning disabilities face as they move through their (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act are school careers. Learning disabilities require remediation through a critical to the education and overall well-being of students with scientifically validated methodology, and mislabeling disabilities as learning disabilities. Students with learning differences, on the other differences allows schools to avoid the commitment they are hand, are not protected by these powerful laws. Words have required to make to teach their students appropriately. immense power, and specificity matters.

Most concerningly, when we describe scientifically verified IDEA defines a specific learning disability as “a disorder in one neurological differences with the catchall term “learning or more of the basic psychological processes involved in differences,” it serves only to create confusion, limiting momentum understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may in the field of research and in education in general. manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, Specifically defining a disorder as a learning disability requires write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations” (IDEA, 2004). This us to harness that concern and commit to doing the work. As disability category includes such conditions as perceptual educators, making that commitment means employing the right disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and research-based instruction to meet the student’s challenges; it means developmental aphasia (a type of language disorder). The Learning providing the tools that the student needs to succeed in mainstream Disabilities Association (LDA) notes, “Under IDEA, there are settings; and it means helping the student own the narrative,

Spring 2021 The Beacon

11

The Most Prominent Disabilities Four learning disabilities are the most prominent among school­age children.

Let’s take a look at those four: their symptoms, possible causes, and common issues.

Dyscalculia

FRONTAL LOBE

What: General mathematical disability in which person cannot comprehend quantity, positive and negative number values, fractions, and many simple mathematical operations Signs: Issues with word problems, handling money, figuring out days/months, long division and patterns

Dysgraphia What: Writing difficulties; usually linked to brain trauma.

PARIETAL LOBE

Dyspraxia What: Motor skills problems Signs: Poor sense of balance

OCCIPITAL and hand­eye coordination; LOBE clumsiness, frequently stumbling; irritation from loud noises and touch In the Brain: Two hemispheres in the cerebral cortex do not share information or respond to each other properly as in an unaffected brain

TEMPORAL LOBE

ANGULAR GYRUS

Signs: Writing in distorted way, consistently incorrectly spelling words and oddly spacing letters

Dyslexia What: Reading disorder; recently linked to genetics Signs: Reading at lower levels than expected; inability to phonologically process words In the Brain: Most likely angular gyrus, an area toward the back of the brain that understands and translates language

empowering them with the understanding of what a learning struggling in school, schools disability means and what it does not mean. are excused from teaching students correctly, and the general A learning disability, for instance, is not a learning inability. We momentum in the fields of research and education is interrupted. know that, taught correctly, students with language-based learning Ultimately, the term “learning difference” has the damaging disabilities thrive academically and intellectually with unlimited potential of denying the scientifically verified neurological reality potential. Furthermore, science has proven that a learning disability of a learning disability, thus placing the blame for academic does not correlate to a low IQ. The American Psychological underperformance on the student. If there’s blame to be ascribed, Association (APA) clarifies that “for diagnostic purposes, learning it belongs to the academic setting that fails to teach the student disability is the condition that exists when through a scientifically proven a person’s actual performance on methodology.

Let me state that again: achievement testing is substantially In order to fully empower children (typically 2 standard deviations) below with learning disabilities, we have to give a learning disability has that expected for his or her established them the resources to understand how intelligence, age, and grade” (APA, 2020). they learn differently. We have to give nothing to do with Let me state this again: a learning them the knowledge that their disability a student’s intelligence. disability has nothing to do with a does not define them, and they need to student’s intelligence. understand that their disability has When people say “learning nothing to do with their intelligence. The difference” instead of “learning disability,” it is usually with good Windward School is a testament to what can happen when students intention and/or to avoid any possible negative connotation; are given agency to act as partners in their educational journey. however, when educators and parents eschew specific diagnoses with Growth can occur only when one can acknowledge the challenge, the intent to “soften the blow” for the students affected, it often has remain open to feedback, and be willing to put in the work. Clearly the opposite effect. Students are left confused about why they are naming and defining the challenge itself is the first step.

For Further Reading

Learning Disabilities Association of New York State. (2008) Learning Disabilities vs. Differences. Retrieved from http://www.ldanys.org/index.php?s=2&b=25

Reiff and Ofiesh. (2016) What do we mean by Learning Differences?

Stanford University. Retrieved from https://slc.stanford.edu/learnervariability/what-do-we-mean-learning-differences

12

The Beacon Spring 2021

Q&A with Inspiring Leaders in the World of Dyslexia

Magdalena Zavalía Miguens Literacy Leader in Spanish­Speaking World

In this Q&A series, we will interview individuals from the dyslexia community who are influencers in their respective fields. We hope this series will provide insight into how dyslexia impacts our world and will inspire our readers to see the potential that dyslexic children can achieve in the future.

By Stephanie Huie, Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications Magdalena Zavalía Miguens is the co­founder of Intelexia, a company that develops literacy programs for Spanish­speaking children, including those at risk of having reading difficulties. She co­authored Aprendo Leyendo, a Spanish reading curriculum and instructional pedagogy based on the PAF Reading Program, which is research based and incorporates explicit, multisensory practices. Since its launch in Buenos Aires in 2016, the program has been implemented by more than 400 teachers in 80+ schools to serve 10,000 students in Argentina.

Ms. Zavalía left her career in law to become a social entrepreneur after she saw how her two children with dyslexia began to thrive once they received PAF reading instruction at The Windward School. Ms. Zavalía is a member of the Board of Trustees at Windward and a member of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub.

Your reading program, Aprendo Leyendo, is for all children who are beginning to read, but it is also effective for teaching children with language­based learning disabilities how to read. How did you first become introduced to reading disabilities like dyslexia?

When my middle son was in first grade, I noticed that reading was a big effort for him, and school was not going smoothly. He would read the word “cat” and decode it with such effort, and then start all over again with the next word. Seeing how hard reading was for him, I had that gut feeling as a parent that something was wrong. Through a friend’s recommendation, I took him to see Alice Cohen, a private tutor and teacher at The Windward School, and she encouraged me to seek an official dyslexia diagnosis.

Once your first son enrolled at Windward, you quickly engaged in many of the reading, writing, and language classes offered through The Windward Institute (formerly the Windward Teacher Training Institute).

What motivated you to participate in these courses, and what did you take away from those experiences?

I had no clue that reading doesn’t happen easily for everyone. I never recalled reading being a big effort for me, and that was the case for my oldest son, too. But knowledge is power, and the only way I felt I could make informed decisions for my children and advocate for them was to really understand my two children who struggled with reading. I just wanted to understand how my sons learned and why reading was difficult for them. I took the expository writing class first, and it was eye-opening. That was the first time I learned that there was a whole body of science behind effective writing instruction and research-based training for teachers. I was puzzled that there is so much evidence showing that this type of instruction is beneficial for not only kids with learning disabilities, but also kids who do not have great difficulty with reading, yet the science did not translate to most mainstream classrooms.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

Your background and career at this point was in law, but you decided to redefine your professional path to focus on promoting literacy for children who struggled with reading. Can you share what triggered this change for you to switch from law to education, specifically reading?

Through The Windward Institute courses, I understood that everyone, not just children with learning disabilities, needs proper reading instruction; however, most children were not receiving it.

I felt anger that there was a clear solution—training teachers appropriately in research-based instruction—but it was just not universally implemented. I saw Windward’s evidence-based instruction was transformational for my kids, which made me wonder, “What’s happening to everyone else?”

When I looked at how the entire continent of South America followed whole language instruction—which is not research based and has very little effectiveness—and had low reading scores compared to other countries in the world, I was outraged. After researching the availability of evidencebased reading programs in Spanish for Spanish-speaking children, I found nothing. I was certain I wanted to at least try to bring this type of reading instruction to the Spanish language and to South America.

The Aprendo Leyendo program is now being taught across Argentina to more than 10,000 students. A report

by Haskins Laboratories stated that 88% of teachers who were trained and who implemented the program believe their students are learning to read better than before. By all accounts, the reach and effectiveness of the program are evident markers of success. What’s next for Intelexia?

We are in this for the marathon, and we hope to change the hearts of policymakers to stick with proven educational policies that really work in the classroom. We also hope to expand to the entire country of Argentina, as we are currently in 7 out of 20 provinces.

Eventually, we want to reach all of Latin America.

Knowledge is power, and the only way I felt I could make informed decisions for my children and advocate for them was to really understand my two children who struggled with reading.

With this passion to create a new Spanish reading program, where did you begin?

In the spring of 2015, I was taking The Windward Institute’s Multisensory Reading Instruction course. I approached Phyllis Bertin, the course instructor and coauthor of the PAF reading program, to ask if she would author a PAF-based literacy program in Spanish with me, and she said yes. Along with my cousin, Clara Zavalía, it was really fun and interesting to create the materials for our program, Aprendo Leyendo, and to co-found the company, Intelexia. We created a group of teachers in my home country of Argentina who would pilot everything that Phyllis and the team wrote in three independent schools that allowed us to use draft copies of our materials. Every Friday, we would have a video call with pilot teachers so they could give us feedback, and Phyllis would in turn train them. It took three years to write the program, pilot it, improve and refine it, and learn about the education system, before we finished Aprendo Leyendo in the beginning of 2018.

Reflecting back on your journey from being a mother grappling with two of her sons having dyslexia to recently speaking to thousands of international policymakers and educators as a literacy leader yourself, what are you most proud of so far in your role as an advocate for children’s literacy?

In 2019, I spent a lot of time in Argentina and visited the schools using our program. Watching the children work with our materials and seeing teachers thrive made me incredibly happy. I was so proud of the teachers and our team. I am happiest when I get to see Aprendo Leyendo in the classroom.

Do you have words of wisdom to fellow parents of chil­ dren with dyslexia so that they, too, can be engaged in their children’s personal development and well­being?

Just learn. Understand how your child learns and make sure you are a strong advocate. Your child should have the same opportunities to reach their potential as every other child. I admire teachers so profoundly, so I believe that in your parent-teacher relationships it’s best to be humble and respectful but firm in supporting your child.

Being a bulldozer parent does not work. I’d also say encouraging the strengths of your child and finding areas in school or outside of school for your child to shine is really important. When school is hard, it is frustrating, so working to find something your child can feel pride in and where they feel like a rockstar gives balance.

13

14

The Beacon Spring 2021

Turning the Tide

The Masked Matthew Effect

By Annie Stutzman Associate Director of The Windward Institute

T

imes of heightened emergency have a way of bringing critical issues to the forefront. At closer look, the COVID19 pandemic has highlighted constant and consistent barriers for countless disenfranchised people, and it has rightfully forced society to reflect on systemic actions that have created deep cracks in many domains, specifically the education system. Access to free education that meets the needs of each child is a key objective of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2020) and in part is meant to support disadvantaged students, which includes students in poverty, minorities, students who receive special education services, and those with limited English language skills. When many schools closed for in-person instruction due to pandemic health protocols in March 2020, the inequities called to attention were not novel. The difficulties for students accessing basic needs and proper instruction had been present prior to the pandemic but were now exposed to a captive audience.

By the end of 2020, countless numbers of children were obstructed from equal learning opportunities, and thousands were still precluded from in-person learning. A survey of more than 2,000 educators found that two-thirds of teachers in the United States attested that a majority of their students were less prepared for grade-level work than they were at this time last year (Kaufman, et al., 2021). This is an education epidemic, and the most vulnerable are those who are already typically at-risk: students in poverty, BIPOC, and those who receive (or should receive) special education services. The Matthew Effect, or the idea that that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is at the foundation of this literacy plight (Stanovitch,1986). The full scope of the developmental and academic effects for the multitude of students the pandemic has touched is rooted in historical educational inequality. Compounding variables of social injustice and ongoing misinformation on proper

pedagogical practices have created a comorbid system. Educational inequity is a large branch growing from roots in systemic inequality.

To understand the deficiencies in education during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can look to the fault lines that were already present.

The 2019 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), or the “Nation’s Report Card,” assessed more than 290,000 fourth- and eighth-grade U.S. students in reading and math. A subgroup of this population is the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which comprises select school districts based on district size, percentages of Black or Hispanic students, and percentages of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program.

In 2019, TUDA districts average reading scores were lower or showed no significant change from 2017 (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2019). The reasons for this can be extrapolated from issues of racial and economic disparity in the educational system. “Race matters, because white children are significantly more likely to go to public schools where more kids are successful with reading; that means when white kids struggle, their reading problems tend to stand out and get attention. And if a child has a reading disability, a white child is much more likely to get special education services” (Hanford 2020). The resources these students and school communities need, which include teacher training and implementation of proven research-based instruction methods, are consistently not made readily available.

The onset of COVID-19 and the global transition to remote learning presented more nuanced issues, such as accessibility, addressing special education needs, and modification of instructional practices. The “summer slide,” or loss of a percentage of educational gains of students during the summer (Cooper et al., 1996), was

Educational inequity is a large branch growing from roots in systemic inequality.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

replaced with a “coronavirus slide,” as millions of students across the globe were displaced after school closings and implementation of virtual classrooms were staggered and inconsistent. Students are expected to confront a 30% loss in learning compared to a typical school year. Once again, schools and students with more resources were able to transition to online learning platforms more quickly, as the fractures of social injustice deepened. In New York City, the rollout of remote learning was met with the quandary of how hundreds of thousands of students, especially housing-insecure children who do not have stable, or even any, internet access, could effectively participate in school. An article in The New York Times in January 2021 reported, “Providing reliable internet access to the city’s 111,000 children in homeless shelters and unstable housing has been one of the most stubborn obstacles to getting online schooling right, and for many students there’s no relief in sight. The city belatedly started putting Wi-Fi in 200 family shelters in November and says it won’t finish until the end of summer, after a second pandemic school year has come and gone” (Newman, 2021).

For these children and a multitude of others, school closings also brought to the forefront the substantial proportion of children who rely on schools for needs apart from education, such as meals and before- and after-school childcare. In the NWEA Research’s April 2020 brief, Dr. Megan Kuhfeld and Dr. Beth Tarasawa (2020) noted, Children from more affluent communities are more likely to come from families with financial resources, stable employment, and flexible work from home and childcare arrangements that allow them to weather this storm more easily than families who are renting their housing, working in low-pay fields that are hardest hit by the economic impacts, and experiencing higher rates of food insecurity, family instability, and other shocks from this disruption.

These variables underscore how The Matthew Effect persists.

In this cycle, families with more economic resources can afford accommodations, whether it be tutors, technology, or simply a secure internet connection.

There is a large amount of data to be collected on the effects of virtual learning and school during COVID-19, and it is too early for guiding statistics. With so many factors affecting the quality of education, the cornerstone of a proven research-based program must not be ignored. At-risk populations, such as children with learning disabilities, are in heightened peril when already substandard or uninformed instruction is present.

Leading reading research expert Mark Seidenberg noted, “Reading to children is important but not sufficient; children benefit from it, some quite a lot, but it neither obviates the role of instruction nor vaccinates against dyslexia” (Seidenberg, 2018). In the educational sector, there are still unfounded ideological debates about best methods of instruction. The consequences for struggling students in schools using a curriculum that does not apply direct, systematic instruction will only be exacerbated by an online learning platform. Far too many students have fallen through the cracks caused by historical inequality, social inequities magnified by a global pandemic, and unwillingness to implement practices steeped in proven analysis.

As the world is finally compelled to examine how the educational system has forgotten and failed so many children, it is the precise time to keep pushing for equality through change. Activist, journalist, and teacher, Ida B. Wells astutely posed, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.”

Expanding on the words of Ms. Wells, the light of truth we must turn on the wrongs must be a beacon. It is crucial that funding in education not only funnels to developing inclusive educational standards, but in allocating resources that will provide benefits for disadvantaged children in perpetuity. Lack of resources should no longer be a justification for lack of education. While masks provide pandemic protection, blinders must be removed to aid the most vulnerable population: our children.

As the world is finally compelled to examine how the educational system has forgotten and failed so many children, it is the precise time to keep pushing for equality through change.

15

16

The Beacon Spring 2021

Inside the Institute

Scientifically Based Reading Programs:

Caveat Emptor

By Dr. John J. Russell, EdD Special Projects Advisor at The Windward School and Associate Director of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub

I

n Lewis Carroll’s classic Through the Looking-Glass, the following the same way that learning to speak develops naturally. Years of dialogue takes place between Alice and Humpty Dumpty: research studies and cognitive science research (Chall,1967; “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a National Reading Panel, 2000; Wolf, 2018; Shaywitz and Shaywitz, scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither 2020) that preceded and followed Goodman and Smith’s more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can publications have conclusively proven that contrary to the assertions make words mean so many different things.” “The question is," of Whole Language advocates, skilled readers rely more heavily on said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” decoding skills (knowledge of letter-sound correspondences) than Humpty’s take on who controls the meaning of words still context clues when learning new words. The alphabetic principle rings true today in many fields and must be explicitly taught, not simply especially in education, where the “discovered” as prescribed by Whole terms “scientifically based” and Language devotees. Despite a Whole Language “evidence based” are frequently used preponderance of evidence discrediting it, indiscriminately. In the most basic terms, in the 1980s Whole Language became a continues to be refuted scientifically based research means there widely used instructional model for is reliable evidence that the program or teaching reading in the United States and by research studies that practice works (Whitehurst, 2001), while other English-speaking countries. evidence based is commonly defined as Whole Language continues to be clearly and unequivocally refuted the combination of “professional by research studies that clearly and wisdom” (that is, based on personal unequivocally identify scientifically based identify scientifically based experience) and the best empirical instructional practices as the most effective evidence. Far too often, these terms are method for teaching reading and by the instructional practices as applied inappropriately and at the sole poor performance of students that have the most effective method been subjected to Whole Language discretion of publishers, school districts, academics, advertisers, and a host of instruction (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, for teaching reading. others who lack the knowledge necessary Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2000; Moats, to discern among scientific evidence, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; personal preferences, and hype. Nowhere Moats, 2000; Moats, 2007; Goswami and are the disastrous effects of this type of mislabeling and Bryant, 2016; Gough, Ehri, Treiman, 2017). In the most generous misunderstanding more profound than in the teaching of reading. terms, the activities called for by the Whole Language approach can The long, torturous battle about reading instruction began in be used to make reading more fun and interesting, but they are not earnest with the publication of Ken Goodman’s Reading: A a substitute for reading instruction that systematically and explicitly Psycholinguistic Guessing Game (1967) and Frank Smith’s teaches decoding skills. The response of the proponents of Whole Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Language to this barrage of criticism would have made Humpty Learning to Read (1971). Both were seminal in moving Whole Dumpty proud—Whole Language simply morphed into Balanced Language philosophy from academic circles into classrooms.

Literacy, and to this day Whole Language lives on in classrooms Misappropriating the mantle “scientifically based,” proponents of across the United States disguised as Balanced Literacy. This Whole Language theorized that learning to read occurs naturally in reincarnation was accomplished in large part by describing Balanced

Spring 2021 The Beacon

What Constitutes an Evidence­Based Education?

Scientifically based reading programs are not the same as an evidence-based education, although the two terms are often applied indiscriminately.

According to the No Child Left Behind legislation (2002), an instructional program is scientifically based when there is “reliable evidence that the program or practice works.” Below, Dr. G.J. Whitehurst outlined how evidence-based programs differ from scientifically based instruction (2001).

Evidence­based Education Empirical Evidence Scientifically­based Research Practice Programs Objective Measures Benchmarks Local Data Professional Wisdom Personal Experiences Consensus Views Literacy programs as “scientifically based” or “evidence based.”

As Louisa Moats explains in Whole Language High Jinks: How to Tell When “Scientifically-based” Reading Instruction Isn’t (2007) the term “scientifically based” has been hijacked by some reading programs that are not in fact based on scientific research. In the introduction to Moats’ guide, Chester Finn states, “…a recognized reading expert explains how educators, parents, and concerned citizens can spot ineffective reading programs that may hide under the ‘scientifically-based' banner. Although the term ‘whole language’ is not commonly used today, programs based on its premises remain popular. These approaches may pay lip service to reading science, but they fail to incorporate the content and instructional methods proven to work best with students learning to read. Some districts openly shun research-based practices, while others fail to provide clear, consistent leadership for principals and teachers, who are left to reinvent reading instruction, school by school. The purpose of

this guide is to help educators and parents spot programs that truly are research based—and those that are not.” Mark Seidenberg (2012) confirms this disregard for science, stating, “There is an enormous disconnect between science and educational practice.

We occupy two different worlds. I believe this is an enormous waste. Many people on the education side dismiss this research as completely irrelevant to their mission. Teachers aren’t exposed to this research as part of their training.”

Not much has changed since Moats’ informative paper (2007) was published. In July 2020, Education Week published a report entitled “The Most Popular Reading Programs Aren’t Backed by Science.” This report confirms that despite a solid understanding of what constitutes effective reading instruction, the difficulty of determining whether a reading program deserves the labels scientifically based or evidence based persists. Education Week’s review (2020) of the top five most popular reading programs revealed that, contrary to the marketing tools that often accompany these programs, “... analysis of the materials found many instances in which these programs diverge from evidence based practices for teaching reading or supporting struggling students.” This report also references Mark Seidenberg’s (2017) Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It, in which he states, “[These reading programs] are put out by large publishers that aren’t very forthcoming.”

Given the significant resources that publishers invest in marketing their reading programs, how can parents and educators determine whether a particular program or practice is scientifically based? Humpty Dumpty maintained, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Should publishers be able to do the same? Authoritative sources answer this question with a resounding “no.”

The U.S. Department of Education (Smith, 2003) offers valuable guidance that clarifies the meanings of “scientifically based” and “evidence based.” According to provisions contained in the No Child Left Behind legislation (2002), “To say that an instructional program or practice is grounded in scientifically based research means there is reliable evidence that the program or practice works.”

Whitehurst (2001) clarifies the concept of “reliable evidence” by offering a hierarchy of the quality of evidence obtained by different research methodologies:

1. Randomized controlled trials 2. Quasi­experimental, including pre­ and post­ data 3. Correlational studies with statistical controls 4. Correlational studies without statistical controls 5. Case studies All these research methodologies can produce “reliable evidence.” However, randomized trials produce the highest quality of evidence, and the quality of the evidence decreases in descending order for each of the other research methodologies listed.

Determining whether instructional programs or practices are grounded in these types of research and, therefore, warrant the label scientifically based, is not a simple matter.

17

18

The Beacon Spring 2021

Grounded in years of scientifically based research on the practice National Council on Teacher Quality (2020) cites colleges and of reading instruction, the report from the National Reading universities for their substandard preparation of teachers. The Panel (2000) unequivocally established that phonemic awareness, International Dyslexia Association (2018) bolsters this conclusion phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are skills that are by citing research findings confirming “…that many teachers, even critical to early reading success. Reading programs that fully those with experience and credentials have limited knowledge about incorporate these five elements into their materials and methods phonemic awareness and phonics and their importance for students are termed “scientifically based” reading programs (Moats, 2007). at risk for reading problems.” Without that knowledge, teachers’ Despite claiming that they are craft knowledge cannot be equated with scientifically based, Balanced Literacy teaching practices that have been programs may contain these elements, scientifically validated. Considering this, The principle of caveat but do not fully incorporate them. In it is understandable that while teachers addition, these programs frequently make hundreds of instructional decisions emptor must be applied deviate from being evidence based in the every day, classroom teachers rarely make instructional practices used to deliver decisions about what curriculum to use. whenever educational them (Education Week, 2020).

In an Education Week survey (2020), 65% Further complicating the issue, the of teachers said that their district selected programs and practices terms “scientifically based” and “evidence their primary reading programs and tout that they are based” are often used synonymously; in materials, while 27% said that the decision reality, there is a significant difference was up to their school. scientifically or between the two terms. Whitehurst Ideally, educators in decision-making (2001) describes “evidence based” as the roles at the district and building levels have evidence based. combination of “professional wisdom” the ability to see through marketing hype that is based on personal experience and determine which reading programs and the best empirical evidence. This and practices are actually scientifically definition leaves “evidence based” open to interpretation. For based. In order for these programs to be effectively utilized, teachers example, using the term “craft knowledge” instead of “personal and administrators must have sufficient knowledge of the “empirical experience,” Murphy (Education Week, 2019) argues, “Scientific evidence” that Whitehurst referenced. Only then can they apply evidence is not the only source of knowledge nor is it the source of their personal knowledge of the unique needs of their students to knowledge that always holds high ground in decision making.” He make truly evidence-based decisions about the reading programs proposes that the craft knowledge of teachers should be given equal and practices that they employ. standing. Given that craft knowledge is acquired through individual Like Humpty Dumpty, Whole Language and Balanced Literacy experience and preparation, the validity of that assertion must be advocates have tried to make “scientifically based” and “evidence questioned, particularly when it is applied to reading instruction. based” mean what they choose them to mean, and others continue There remains a significant disconnect between the preparation to use the same tactic. The principle of caveat emptor must be teachers need to be successful and the preparation they receive in applied whenever educational programs and practices tout that they their pre-service and graduate education courses. Year after year, The are scientifically or evidence based; our students depend on it.

2021 Fall Community Lecture Save the Date

Thursday, October 28, 2021 7:30 p.m.

Equity for Children with Language­Based Learning Disabilities

Presented by

Dr. Julie Washington Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Georgia State University

Spring 2021 The Beacon

Research Roundup

Yes, And... A Comprehensive Model for Understanding Reading Disabilities

By Danielle Scorrano, Research & Development Director of The Windward Institute and Host of READ Podcast

E

ach school year invites a vibrancy that is only truly understood by those who enter the teaching profession.

Students enter the classroom each day with diverse needs and skills, coupled with the eagerness to participate in a shared class community. At Windward, the community understands the magnitude of the endeavor that lies ahead for our students each day—to engage in a rigorous learning environment to develop the reading, writing, and language skills that are most difficult for them. As students learn new skills, their brains create new neural pathways for further learning.

Yet, each child’s development is both unique and individual.

A Windward student’s experience in the classroom illustrates the research on children with language-based learning disabilities and effective practices to support their academic growth. If you imagine a brain, we know that this incredible organ is intricately based on a person’s neurological and genetic makeup, and it is constantly being stimulated with new connections as students learn about new ideas. This theory, neuroplasticity, is perhaps one of the most important concepts in educational neuroscience, and it is foundational for teachers in the classroom.

Similarly, researchers explore brain plasticity when they study how children’s brains develop throughout a learning experience.

The increased knowledge that scientists gain about the brains of students with language-based learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, continues to inform classroom practice. As a result, students like those at The Windward School receive effective, scientifically based instruction in a rigorous learning environment so they can successfully develop the reading, writing, and language skills that are most difficult for them. This article focuses on the cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia (Catts & Petscher, 2020) and how we can integrate the research foundation presented by Hugh Catts, PhD, (who will be speaking at The Windward School’s 2021 Robert J. Schwartz Lecture) with practical insights to better inform educational practice.

The Complexity of Reading and Reading Difficulties Before examining the multidimensional nature of reading difficulties, it is necessary to understand the complexity of the reading process. Examining the theory of neuroplasticity further, it posits that the brain is not hardwired for reading written text, but the brain’s circuitry reorganizes as a learner builds skills for reading (Dehaene, 2010; Seidenberg, 2017; Wolf & Stoodley, 2007).

Consequently, reading is an effortful, deliberate task requiring the integration of numerous cognitive skills. In their model of skilled reading acquisition and comprehension, Gough and Tunmer (1986) developed the Simple View of Reading, which has been cited across bodies of research for decades (Catts, 2021). The Simple View of Reading outlines two groups of skills necessary for reading mastery—word-level decoding and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

While Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) model provides a foundational overview, later research shows the nuanced and

19

20

The Beacon Spring 2021

complex nature of skilled reading (Catts, 2018). For example, the seminal Scarborough Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001) details the skills required for reading as fibrous strands of a rope, each integral for strengthening the metaphorical rope of reading. Scarborough’s (2001) model expands upon Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) earlier conceptualization of word-level and language skills. Scarborough (2001) defines word-level skills to include phonological awareness, decoding, and mastery of sight words. Language comprehension skills involve vocabulary, structures of language like grammar and syntax, verbal reasoning, background knowledge, and skilled identification in literary structures (i.e., recognizing narrative or expository text structures) (Scarborough, 2001). Oral language skills also require the understanding of meaning, from words to sentences (Adlof & Hogan, 2019). In order to achieve reading fluency and comprehension, a reader must build automaticity and fluency at the word level while developing competence in language skills (Scarborough, 2001).

The theoretical frameworks and related research on reading provide insights on why children vary in their mastery of this cognitive skill. Research supporting the Simple View of Reading, for example, implies that decoding and word-level difficulties attribute to a variation in reading in the earlier grades, while difficulties related to language comprehension skills lead to differences in reading in the later grades (Catts, 2018, 2020).

Further research on the dynamic nature of the brain and its plasticity points to multifaceted and interdependent factors that relate to variation in reading mastery amongst children. When Devin Kearns, PhD, delivered the 2019 Fall Community Lecture at The Windward School, he synthesized the research associated with reading difficulties (including primary deficits in phonological awareness and word reading), oral language, background knowledge, syntax, and vocabulary (Kearns, 2019). Other influences of reading difficulties could include insufficient early exposure to rich language, inadequate reading instruction, attention, or behavior (Kearns, 2019). It is important to note that these factors should not be misinterpreted as a single cause of a reading difficulty, rather that they could attribute to or increase the probability of a developing reading difficulty.

Cumulative Risk Factors of Dyslexia In examining the factors of the emergence of dyslexia, Catts and Petshcer (2020) developed the cumulative risk and protection model. While strong evidence points to the dominance of certain deficits in dyslexia, a model that denotes a single cause may not account for the variability in some children with dyslexia (Catts & Petscher, 2020). Instead, the cumulative risk and protection model encompasses a multifaceted approach, characterized by the integrated and interdependent nature of the brain (Catts & Petscher, 2020).

The interaction between certain risk and protective factors encompasses the probability of risk for developing reading deficits

(Catts & Petscher, 2020). Risk factors, both neurobiological and environmental, increase the likelihood of a child experiencing difficulties learning to read. Decades of evidence point to the strong presence of risk factors of dyslexia, such as deficits in phonological and word-level reading skills, Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN), letter knowledge, and verbal working memory (Catts & Petcher, 2020; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Gaab, 2017). Other studies show that deficits in language skills such as oral language and vocabulary (Hogan & Adlof, 2019), as well as delays in executive functioning, exacerbate difficulties experienced by students with dyslexia. Current research explores the role of the environment at home, in school, or within the larger community in the development of reading disabilities, such as childhood trauma and experiences inducing toxic stress (Catts & Petscher, 2020).

Protective Factors of Dyslexia Despite the complexity of risk factors of dyslexia, Catts and Petscher’s model (2020) shows the influence of protective factors in promoting positive outcomes or resilience in children with reading disabilities. Access to high quality, evidence-based, explicit reading instruction that targets skills has been shown to powerfully reduce difficulties associated with reading disabilities like dyslexia (NICHD, 2001; Foorman et al., 2016; Torgesen, 2004). Decades of research support skills-based instruction in phonological awareness, word attack strategies, spelling, handwriting, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NICHD, 2000; Foorman et al., 2016; Seidenberg, 2017; Torgesen, 2004). Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) assert that “[High] quality classroom instruction [especially] in kindergarten and the primary grades is the single best weapon against reading failure.”

Current research examines the role of protective factors that promote social-emotional resilience, such as growth mindset and self-control (Catts & Petscher, 2020). Furthermore, it is well documented in cognitive and psychological research that positive relationships with teachers, parents, and mentors promote prosocial outcomes (Catts & Petscher, 2020; Haft, Hoeft & Myers, 2016; Haft et al., 2019). For instance, Haft and colleagues (2019) explored the role of mentoring on the social-emotional resilience of students with LD and ADHD, concluding that mentoring resulted in an increase in measures of self-esteem and a decrease in measures of depression.

The cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia (Catts & Petscher, 2020) comprehensively demonstrates the multifaceted nature of reading difficulties associated with this language-based learning disability. This model supports the decades of research that establishes the multidimensionality of factors influencing reading difficulties at large. Through the examination of numerous factors in the model, researchers and educators gain a better understanding of the markers and experiences that result in a child’s overall vulnerability to reading difficulties.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

Implications for Education As the research community gains a more nuanced understanding of dyslexia and related reading difficulties, policies and educational practices should be addressed across the system and supported at the school level. In fact, a deeper understanding of the factors associated with dyslexia and other reading difficulties has never been more critical or timely. While the calls for change outlined to the right are not new, they nevertheless must be prioritized for struggling readers.

1. Understanding what dyslexia and related reading disabilities are and are not Pervasive myths and misconceptions about learning disabilities like dyslexia, developmental language disorders, and other reading difficulties continue to exist throughout the world. Lack of knowledge and understanding about common learning disabilities dictate whether children receive the support and instruction they need. As a global society, we must address the lack of systemic understanding about learning disabilities, especially as they relate to literacy, in order to promote the academic success and well-being of all children.

2. Implementing universal screening The research conclusively points to universal early screening as a powerful way to mitigate risks associated with the development of reading disabilities. Early screening evaluates a child’s overall risk profile of a reading disability, identifies the factors that influence the child’s difficulties, and provides an entry point for early intervention.

3. Investing in an evidence­based curriculum and teacher training Early screening should precede an evidence-based explicit intervention that targets a child’s needs and mitigates further academic and secondary socialemotional consequences. Gaab (2017) explains, “Although a diagnosis of dyslexia usually is not given before the end of second grade or the beginning of third grade (after the requisite period of failing), intensive interventions are most effective in kindergarten or first grade.” There is an urgent responsibility for policy makers, institutes of higher education, and school leaders to understand the educational, economic, social, and moral implications of appropriately and effectively addressing the needs of our nation’s most vulnerable learners.

4. Recognizing teachers as changemakers and scientists The research on supporting learners with disabilities points to the invaluable power of teachers. Educators are changemakers and scientists. As a Windward teacher, I never underestimated my power to change my students’ lives, especially when armed with a toolbox of knowledge and expertise.

Working Toward “Yes, And” in Research and Education A comprehensive model for understanding reading disabilities like dyslexia must always include a “yes, and.” It requires a yes to embracing and disseminating the science that addresses the needs of students and an eagerness to learn more. It requires a yes to advocating for the policies and educational practices proven by science and the commitment to invest more. With a “yes, and” mindset, we work toward providing an exceptional learning experience, a fundamental right for all students.

There is an urgent responsibility to understand the educational, economic, social, and moral implications of appropriately and effectively addressing the needs of our nation’s most vulnerable learners.

Listen, Subscribe, and Share!

READ The Research, Education, and ADvocacy podcast readpodcast.org Listen to READ on your favorite podcast player

21

22

The Beacon Spring 2021

INTERSECTING RESEARCH WITH CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Why Reading Aloud Is Not Just for Early Readers

By Molly Ness, PhD

R

eading aloud is undoubtedly one of the most important instructional activities to help children develop the fundamental skills and knowledge needed to become readers. Decades of research highlight the instructional benefits of read alouds for promoting a love of literature, fostering social interactions, and igniting a passion for lifelong reading habits (Reading Rockets, 2021). Home- and school-based read alouds increase children’s vocabulary, listening comprehension, story schema, background knowledge, word recognition skills, and cognitive development. A 2019 study (Kids and Family Reading Report) showed that reading one picture book a day provides young children with 78,000 words a year, and researchers estimate that incoming kindergarten children from literacy-rich homes hear a cumulative 1.4 million more words than children who never have storybook reading time (Logan, Justice, Chaparro-Moreno, 2019).

Children who are read to are more likely to engage in independent reading (Ledger & Merga, 2018).

In addition to these important academic benefits, reading aloud plays a critical role in promoting the rapid development of young children’s neural and auditory systems, as well as language and attention. A 2018 study (Mendelsohn et al., 2018) showed that very young children who engaged in home-based read alouds were less likely to display behavioral challenges like aggression, hyperactivity, and difficulty with attention. Reading aloud to children is so important that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents read aloud to their infants from birth.

While reading aloud may be a ubiquitous part of early childhood, this important practice is much less common in the upper elementary and secondary school years. Whereas 90% of parents of children ages 6-8 report reading aloud five to seven times a week, that figure drops to 60% for children ages 9-11—a phenomenon often referred to as “the decline at nine” (Kids and Family Reading Report, 2019). Often adults assume that because children are reading independently themselves, there is no longer a need for the read aloud. However, we never outgrow the benefits of a shared read aloud, and children (adults too!) of all ages benefit

from a read aloud. As children enter the tween years, we must renew our commitment to reading aloud, and embrace innovative ways to breathe new life into a familiar habit.

Here are some easy ideas on how to engage older children with read alouds: Encourage older siblings to share the responsibility of joining parents/caregivers in reading aloud to younger siblings.

Embrace texts that are longer and introduce more complicated themes and storylines; though a child might be able to independently read, they might not be ready to independently tackle sophisticated texts.

Reinvent the read aloud as a social interaction for older children. When COVID­19 hit, my multigenerational family did a daily read aloud of a Jason Reynolds middle school­level book. Additionally, my daughter saw me reading Bruce Springsteen’s Born to Run memoir, so she read a kid­friendly version of similar content from the popular Who Is? series.

Now more than ever, parents are vital partners in their children’s education. Though we may not have the skills and knowledge to assist our children with pre-algebra or the complexities of cell reception, we all have the ability to read aloud with our children. The academic, literacy, and socioemotional benefits of reading aloud to children may far outlast the stress and uncertainty of today’s world.

About the Author Molly Ness, PhD, began her teaching career as a Teach For America corps member and sixth grade teacher in Oakland, CA. She earned a doctorate in reading education from the University of Virginia, where she led the McGuffey Reading Clinic. Since 2006, Dr. Ness has been a teacher educator and associate professor at Fordham University. She is the author of three books and multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

An Inside Look at Read Alouds in the Classroom

By Kate Sullivan

B

right eyes. Raised hands. Laughter. This is what read aloud looks like in my lower school classroom at The Windward School. We end the day with a 20-minute block in which I choose a picture book or a novel to read to the students. During read aloud, the character analysis is deeper, the vocabulary is expanded, and the plots are more complex.

Since students at Windward have dyslexia or another languagebased learning disability, much of their day is spent focused on work that is most difficult for them. During our language arts block, teachers use a direct, sequential, multisensory approach to teach reading, which means one skill is taught at a time, and they build upon each other. Students read from controlled text, which helps them to build their reading skills and develop confidence in their abilities. Yet, students also need rich vocabulary, dynamic plot, and character development, which are not emphasized in most controlled readers.

Read alouds provide critical time for students to listen and enjoy a story, while simultaneously learning to strengthen their comprehension abilities, answer inferential questions about nuanced characters and plot points, and learn new vocabulary words in context, which their teachers continue to use throughout the year. Teachers spend time selecting texts that are tied to what the students are learning in the curriculum, the time of year, or contain especially interesting plots or vocabulary. Windward teachers are trained on how to use expert tactics to introduce the reading, ask questions throughout the story, and summarize at the end, in addition to providing an extremely enjoyable listening experience for the children.

Reading to children (of all ages) is not just educational—it is also pleasurable and relaxing. My favorite read aloud for my second graders has always been the Toys Go Out series. The chapters in each of the books are hilarious for children and adults, and they have such rich vocabulary and character development, even though the characters are toys. Through the years, I have adopted voices for all the characters and have acquired stuffed animal versions of them

that become “mascots” in our classroom. My students beg me to read Toys Go Out every day, and each year parents tell me their children have asked them to purchase the series to have at home as well.

Although read aloud has enabled many special moments for our students, the most exciting read aloud experience for our first and second graders has been the Reading Buddies program. Windward eighth graders and our first and second graders write letters to each other as pen pals, and then the eighth graders visit to read to our students and enjoy a little party with them. Seeing the adoration in the eyes of the young students as they listen to an older version of themselves read a story so beautifully is truly magical.

When parents ask Windward teachers, “What more could I be doing to help my child?”, our answer is always the same: keep reading to them! The magic of listening to a story never gets old, no matter the age of the listener. Students all the way up to high school can enjoy and benefit from engaging with text (and the person reading it), even if it seems they are “too old for a read aloud.” At Windward, we teach students to read—but we also teach them to listen.

About the Author Kate Sullivan has been teaching at The Windward School for almost a decade. In 2019, she was honored as the Sandi Galst Scholar, which recognizes an outstanding Windward reading teacher. She earned her master's degree in special education, with a concentration in learning disabilities, and she works privately as a learning specialist.

Ms. Sullivan loves seeing the joy her young students find in their own success, and she feels fortunate to work at The Windward School, where she sees that on a daily basis.

23

24

The Beacon Spring 2021

Read Aloud Book List

Grade 2 Toys Go Out series

by Emily Jenkins Mercy Watson series

by Kate DiCamillo Mrs. Piggle Wiggle series

by Betty MacDonald The Quiltmaker’s Gift

by Jeff Brumbeau

Grade 4 Poppy

by Avi Bunnicula

by Deborah Howe and James Howe

The Picture Book of... biography series

by David Adler Martin’s Big Words

by Doreen Rappaport

Grade 3 Roald Dahl books

Swimmy

by Leo Lionni

Ish

by Peter Reynolds

The Rabbit Listened

by Cori Doerrfeld

Jabari Jumps

by Gaia Cornwall

Quiet Please, Owen McPhee

by Trudy Ludwig

Babe

by Dick King-Smith Charlotte’s Web

by E. B. White

The Rough Face Girl

by Rafe Martin

Grade 5 The Sneetches

by Dr. Seuss

The Tree of the Dancing Goats

by Patricia Polacco

The Family Under the Bridge

by Natalie Savage Carlson

The Lorax

by Dr. Seuss

Separate is Never Equal

by Duncan Tonatiuh

Dr. Ness’s Favorite Read Aloud Resources www.readaloud.org

www.storylineonline.net

Dr. Ness’s article from Parents Magazine (2020)

www.readbrightly.com

Dr. Ness’s position paper from the International Literacy Association

Spring 2021 The Beacon

News Around Windward

Implementing Early Literacy Skill Building with Partners in Jamaica training. Thanks to Windward’s technology office, gently used laptops were collected, reformatted, and distributed to the educators from the schools participating in the professional development. On October 23, members of the WI team joined Ms. Sobers and Jerome King of WWKIDS and faculty members from the three participating schools, Gideon Educational Centre, Lannaman's Preparatory School, and VAZ Preparatory School, for a virtual ceremony to celebrate the delivery of the laptops for teacher use and the forthcoming WI language skills workshop.

Pictured are Ms. Happas and Ms. Berkowitz.

P

roviding professional development is a pillar of The Windward Institute (WI), and a recent international partnership has been a rewarding endeavor for the Institute team.

A connection between Dr. John J. Russell, Special Projects Advisor to the WI, and Simone Sobers, founder of the New Yorkbased 501(c)(3) non-profit Winsome Wishes for Kids (WWKIDS), sparked a discussion about the need for addressing the educational landscape, especially for children with language-based learning disabilities, in Jamaica, West Indies.

With the combined passion for empowering children to achieve unlimited success, The Windward Institute and WWKIDS created a three-year plan that outlined these goals: Year 1 WI offers training in language and reading programs Year 2 WI provides intermediate training programs and support for teachers through interactive workshops Year 3 Measure effectiveness of implemented Windward programs, particularly in children’s reading and language development

Response to the Pandemic In March 2020, Windward’s Head of School Jamie Williamson and Coordinators of Language, Nicole Berkowitz and Diane Happas, were set to embark on a site visit to two of the pilot-partnership schools in Jamaica. However, due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and safety protocols, the trip was indefinitely delayed.

As the nature of the pandemic became more understood and schools across the globe shifted to virtual platforms, it became clear that limited access to the necessary technology for remote learning was an urgent issue. In response, the WI sought to share additional technological resources that would enable more Jamaican educators to participate in the forthcoming virtual professional development

Virtual Workshop Series Begins: Building Phonological Awareness Skills On December 17, thirty kindergarten through third grade educators from the selected schools in Jamaica participated in a virtual, interactive one-day workshop led by Ms. Berkowitz and Ms. Happas. The session’s focus was on phonemic awareness, an imperative set of skills for the acquisition of early literacy capability.

“It was extremely exciting when we were presented with the opportunity to share research and our knowledge on phonological awareness in order to help the teachers in Jamaica better understand the phonological foundation to literacy,” said Ms. Berkowitz. “A large body of research has linked deficient phonological awareness skills with poor reading achievement.”

While the workshop received immense positive feedback, it further underscored the need for continued professional development and collaboration.

“I see our presentation as an initial step in helping teachers implement explicit instruction in sound-to-letter-to–spelling correspondences,” said Ms. Happas. “Teachers will now need ongoing support and coaching to implement an instructional curriculum that highlights sound awareness and builds student proficiency with phoneme awareness tasks (identifying, segmenting, blending speech sounds). With its many resources, faculty, webinars, and curricular materials, The Windward Institute will continue efforts to enrich and empower the Jamaican faculty as they develop a comprehensive literacy program.”

Looking to the Future The Windward Institute is currently planning the next steps in this collaboration. Ms. Sobers of WWKIDS noted, “As a team, we feel the quality service that the WI provides is one we believe will be of support to the children of Jamaica. We are ready to embrace The Windward Institute.” The WI team looks forward to strengthening the foundational skills of educators and continuing to build these special partnerships on a larger scale with a wider impact.

25

26

The Beacon Spring 2021

News Around Windward

Year 1 Data Interpretation of Windward/Haskins In­School Research Study

T

he longitudinal study, Predicting Literacy Outcomes at The Windward School (PLOW), is a multi-year research project that is being conducted by Haskins Laboratories and The Windward Institute (WI) team. Year 1 was successfully completed in May 2020 after the research team reconfigured the study to an online assessment collection model. Despite pivoting to a virtual platform, the WI observed minimal data loss and limited attrition and was presented with new opportunities for exploration. These facets hold positive implications for this pioneering study.

In the fall, Year 2 data collection was completed virtually and Haskins researcher and PLOW team member Daniel Kleinman, PhD, presented study data analysis at the Society for the Neurobiology of Language’s annual conference. “[In this study] we are interested in understanding how Windward students process written language (like when reading) and oral language (like when listening to other people talk),” said Dr. Kleinman. In order to measure the brain waves of the participating Windward students in response to oral language, the students, referred to as Junior Scientists, listened to audiobooks of Alice in Wonderland and Stuart Little. The research team then paid particular attention to how the EEG data changed in response to the individual words the Junior Scientists were hearing.

“When skilled readers hear words that are less common in the English language, their brains respond differently than when they hear words that are more common,” said Dr. Kleinman. “You see a positive spike in brain waves for typical readers after they hear a more common word.”

Year 1 Study Data Key Findings The more skilled readers involved in the study showed the same difference in brain waves between less and more common words as adults in previous research studies did.

The more skilled readers had a spike in brain waves following hearing common words.

Less skilled readers showed no difference or did not show as much of a positive spike after hearing common words.

People with reading difficulties also have difficulties with higher level language processing, even when reading is not involved. This is useful to understand because, when treating reading difficulties, it is important to focus on other language­related skills as well as reading.

The top left image depicts how brain waves are visually tracked while a student listens to an audiobook. The top right image depicts how typical adult brain waves respond to language, with the dark gray region indicating the positive spike that follows hearing a common word.

The bottom image reflects the data collected from Windward students in Year 1 of the study.

The Windward Institute's partnership with the Haskins Global Literacy Hub continues to be an exciting initiative, as it allows the WI to further collaborative dialogue with leading educational institutions in order to bridge the research and educational worlds. Windward looks forward to engaging with the future developments of the Predicting Literacy Outcomes at The Windward School study.

Spring 2021 The Beacon

News Around Windward

Addressing Literacy at DISFAM Congress 2020 to 2,900+ International Viewers

O

n November 14, Dr. John J. Russell, Special Advisor to The Windward Institute, and Magdalena Zavalía Miguens, Co-Founder of Intelexia and Trustee of The Windward School, presented at the 2020 DISFAM (Asociación Dislexia y Familia) National and Iberican Congress. The international audience of more than 2,900 policy makers, educators, school leaders, and literacy researchers from Spain and across Latin and South America gathered for the purpose of informing the global community about dyslexia, language-based learning disabilities, and research on reading and the brain.

Calls for Future Action Toward a More Equitable, Global Future 1 Addressing widespread misconceptions An incredible amount of misinformation about instructional practices to support children with dyslexia continues to spread throughout educational communities. Misguided theories promoting certain fonts, colors, or glasses may seem innovative, when in fact they have been disproven to support dyslexics.

2 Advocating for research­based practices Decades of behavioral and brain-based research supports practices like universal and early screening, as well as high quality intervention and remediation using systematic, explicit reading instruction. This type of instruction has been proven based on the evidence that experts have learned about the reading brain.

3 Translating research and classroom practice

Dr. Russell and Ms. Zavalía both made presentations that shared the same message: When a research-based reading program is paired with direct instruction methodology and investment in teacher training, it results in positive student outcomes. Ms. Zavalía’s key message specifically highlighted the possibility of creating high quality, research-based reading instruction across geographical locations, school context, and language.

Reflecting on the conference, Dr. Russell explained, “There’s a real hunger to learn more about the research and dyslexia with a common goal of saving the next generation of kids.”

To receive the latest news from The Windward Institute, subscribe to the WI digital newsletter at

www.thewindwardschool.org/WImailinglist

Teachers in Spanish-speaking countries need high quality research that applies to their culture, language, and classroom practices. Translation of research and pedagogy involves more than a simple linguistic conversion and also requires consideration of cultural differences and teacher needs.

4 Focusing on current and future needs worldwide Increased investment is needed to provide information and resources worldwide. As members of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub, both speakers discussed the Hub’s next steps, which include providing Spanish versions of existing resources and research, continuing to host free webinars in English and Spanish, and establishing more global partnerships.

27

20

40 West Red Oak Lane White Plains, NY 10604

Institute

Beacon The

NonProfit Organization US Postage PAID White Plains, NY Permit No. 16

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED To be added to The Beacon mailing list, visit www.thewindwardschool.org/WImailinglist

The Windward Institute Journal for Educators and Parents Spring 2021

Jamie Williamson Head of School BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2020–21 EXECUTIVE BOARD

Patricia L. Wolff Chair Mitchell J. Katz 1st Vice President Jenny Price 2nd Vice President Mark A. Ellman Treasurer Maria Reed Secretary Arthur Ceria Thomas J. Coleman Elizabeth A. Crain Peter D’Avanzo George Davison David Friedland Alexander A. Gendzier Jeffrey B. Goldenberg Meredith Jenkins Timothy M. Jones Joseph Lorono Staci Marlowe Janice Meyer Magdalena Zavalía Miguens Denis J. O’Leary, III Katie Puris Sandip Singh Jon Steingart Nicholas Van Amburg Anike Wariebi EDITOR

Stephanie Huie Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications DESIGN

The Blank Page, NYC

Institute All Classes Offered VIRTUALLY

Register now for the The Windward Institute Spring/Summer 2021 Courses & Workshops!

NEW! Building Comprehension Through Metacognitive Modeling Instructor: Molly Ness, PhD May 11 • 4 pm–6 pm

Classroom Language Dynamics: The Language of Learning and Literacy Instructor: Lydia H. Soifer, PhD July 12­15 • 9 am–1 pm

Learn how to build students’ comprehension and metacognition. We will focus on think alouds and discuss an easy-to-implement threestep planning process. Make the most of your read alouds by thinking big so your students will internalize reading strategies.

This four-day course will focus on the role language plays in learning, including decoding and comprehension, vocabulary, and more.

Participants will learn techniques and strategies for enhancing language learning in the classroom.

View all professional development offerings at www.thewindwardschool.org/WI

Stay connected

thewindwardschool.org

thewindwardschool.org/wi

TheWindwardSchool

TheWindwardInst

TheWindwardSchool

TheWindwardInstitute

Windward_School

TheWindwardInst